Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

Lessons learned about technology transfer


Everett M. Rogers *, Shiro Takegami , Jing Yin
Department of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1171, USA
Received 9 March 2000; received in revised form 23 April 2000; accepted 29 April 2000

Abstract
The present paper derives lessons learned about effective technology transfer from research on the technology transfer process
in New Mexico over the past several years. Technology transfer from national R&D laboratories and from research universities
provides the main basis for economic growth by metropolitan regions in the United States. New Mexico is (1) technology-rich
because of Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of New Mexico, and (2) entrepreneurfriendly. High-technology spin-offs are a particularly effective means of technology transfer. The process of technology transfer is
a difficult type of communication, and demands trained and skilled personnel, adequate resources, and organizational and other
reward/incentive structures. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Technology transfer; Spin-offs; High technology; Regional development

1. Introduction
Many metropolitan regions around the world look at
technopolises like Silicon Valley in Northern California;
Austin, Texas; the Route 128 complex near Boston,
Massachusetts; Tsukuba Science City in Japan; Cambridge, England; and Bangalore and Hyderabad, India;
and may seek to become more like them. The technology
cities create jobs and wealth, and thus are a mechanism
for economic development. For example, in Silicon Valley, undoubtedly the most widely known technopolis in
the world, an average of 63 new millionaires were created each day during 1999 (Nieves, 2000). An analysis
of the rate of economic growth by US metropolitan areas
during the 1990s found that two-thirds of the increase in
economic growth was due to high-technology industry,
fueled in turn by spin-off companies from research universities, federal R&D laboratories and corporate laboratoriess (DeVol, 1999). So, an important policy question
has become how metropolitan regions can harness such
technology transfer for their economic development. The
answer may lie in an improved understanding of the
technology transfer process.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-505-277-7569; fax: +1-505-2774206.


E-mail address: erogers@unm.edu (E.M. Rogers).

The purpose of the present paper is to summarize lessons learned about technology transfer over the past several years of research on: (1) CRADAs (cooperative R&
D agreements) linking Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL) with private companies (Rogers et al., 1998);
(2) spin-offs from LANL and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) (Carayannis et al., 1998), and from research
centers at the University of New Mexico (UNM)
(Steffensen et al., 1999; Rogers et al., 1999a); (3) the
role of entrepreneurs individualistic and collectivistic
cultural values in high-tech spin-offs in New Mexico and
Singapore (Rogers et al., 1999c); (4) the technology
transfer effectiveness of 55 research centers at UNM
(Rogers et al., 1999a; Steffensen et al., 1999); and (5)
the technology transfer effectiveness of 132 research
universities in the United States as they move toward an
era of academic capitalism (Slaughter and Leslie,
1997) in which the university becomes increasingly
involved in the business aspects of transferring researchbased technologies (Rogers et al., 1999b).

2. Prospects for a New Mexico technopolis


New Mexico is a large state in area (ranking fifth
among the 50 states), small in population (only 1.5
million people, half of whom reside in the Albuquerque
area), and poor (50th of the 50 states in per capita

0166-4972/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 6 - 4 9 7 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 9 - 0

254

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

income). Albuquerque is remote from the metropolitan


centers of capital and from consumer markets in the
United States.
Despite these handicaps, state leaders and city officials
in Albuquerque are strongly committed to creating a
technopolis (technology city) in Northern New Mexico.
Technology transfer is regarded as a crucial factor for
economic development in New Mexico. The state ranks
fourth among the 50 states in federal and university R&
D performance. The New Mexico Legislature created a
variety of pro-technology transfer policies in recent
years, such as by allowing venture capital firms to draw
on the states reserve funding (including that earned by
a state severance tax) in order to provide up to half of the
investment in new high-tech companies in New Mexico.
LANL and SNL actively encourage high-tech spin-offs
and utilize other mechanisms of technology transfer.
Numerous technology transfer institutions seek to facilitate the entrepreneurship process. Particularly important
is the Technology Ventures Corporation (TVC), which
is funded by Lockheed Martin, the aerospace company
that manages SNL. UNM doubled its sponsored research
funding over the past decade (to about $200 million
annually), a faster rate of increase than that of any other
US research university in this time period (Rogers et al.,
1999a). Several of UNMs 55 research centers play an
active role in technology transfer, including facilitating
spin-offs. So technology transfer activity is increasingly
underway in New Mexico, as Albuquerque moves
toward becoming a future technology city.
Spin-offs can be a particularly effective means of
technology transfer, leading to job and wealth creation.
But the number of spin-offs occurring in a region is usually slow at first until a certain point (the critical mass)
is reached, when the rate of spin-off activity begins to
increase exponentially (Rogers, 1995). The availability
of ample technology in a region is a necessary but insufficient factor in the development of a technopolis (much
of the technology from federal weapons laboratories like
SNL and LANL is defense-related and thus is particularly difficult to commercialize). Technology transfer
facilitating organizations like TVC, several incubators
and research parks, and the offices of technology commercialization at SNL and LANL, can speed up the process of getting to critical mass in the growth of hightech spin-offs.
New Mexico provides a useful environment in which
to understand the technology transfer process as a means
of economic development, in part because, like many
cities in the world, the Albuquerque area is at a fairly
early state of high-tech development and faces important
barriers to be overcome.

3. Technology transfer
Technology is information that is put into use in order
to accomplish some task (Eveland, 1986). Transfer is
the movement of technology via some communication
channel from one individual or organization to another.
A technological innovation is an idea, practice or object
that is perceived as new by an individual or some other
unit (Rogers, 1995). Therefore, technology transfer is the
application of information (a technological innovation)
into use (Gibson and Rogers, 1994). The technology
transfer process usually involves moving a technological
innovation from an R&D organization to a receptor
organization (such as a private company). A technological innovation is fully transferred when it is commercialized into a product that is sold in the marketplace.
So technology transfer is a special type of communication process.
Technological innovationdevelopment is often
described as a linear process, from basic research, to
applied research, to development, to commercialization,
to diffusion, and to the consequences of the innovation.
A linear model of the innovationdevelopment process
may not fully take into account external environmental
factors, such as market demand or regulatory changes,
which may influence the technological innovation process. The technology transfer process spans the stages
from R&D to commercialization and beyond, but with
particular focus on the interface between R&D (often by
a university research center, a corporate unit, or by a
government laboratory) and commercialization (often
carried out by a private company).
3.1. Technology transfer mechanisms
Technology transfer occurs via various channels of
communication.
1. A spin-off is a new company that is formed (1) by
individuals who were former employees of a parent
organization, and (2) with a core technology that is
transferred from a parent organization (Rogers and
Steffensen, 1999). Spin-offs thus represent the transfer of a technological innovation to a new entrepreneurial company that is formed around that technological innovation. Generally, a spin-off neighbors with
its parent organization, especially, as in Northern New
Mexico, when they are located in an area with an
attractive quality-of-life.1 As more and more spin-offs
occur, including spin-offs of spin-offs, an agglomeration of high-tech companies is formed, eventually
1
Another reason for the agglomeration of spin-offs is that venture
capital does not travel far, due to the need for the venture capitalist to
remain in almost daily contact with the spin-offs in which the venture
capitalist has invested.

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

2.

3.

4.

5.

resulting in a technopolis. A spectacular demonstration of this agglomeration process of high-tech


spin-offs occurred in Austin, Texas in the late 1980s
and 1990s.
Licensing is the granting of permission or rights to
make, use and/or sell a certain product, design or process, or to perform certain other actions, by a party
that has the right to give such permission (Anon.,
1995). A licensing fee is usually paid in exchange
for acquiring a technology license. Licensing royalties
may earn considerable income for a research university or for a national R&D laboratory. We believe that
the increasing emphasis on technology licensing royalties by US research universities may be transforming these institutions into entrepreneurial universities pursuing a path toward academic capitalism
(Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). The University of New
Mexico now has an active office of technology licensing with a staff of four professionals who are organizationally part of the Universitys Science and Technology Corporation, a research foundation that also
manages the universitys real estate and its incubator
for high-tech spin-offs.
Publications can also be a means of technology transfer. Articles published in academic journals are the
most frequently used means of technology transfer,
as reported by university scholars. Unfortunately,
journal articles are mainly written for fellow scientists, rather than for potential users of a researchbased technology. Thus scholarly articles are not an
effective means of technology transfer, although they
are the most frequently cited technology transfer
activity by university-based research centers (Rogers
et al., 1999a).
Meetings involve person-to-person interaction
through which technical information is exchanged. In
the late 1990s, three networks/associations were
organized in New Mexico to facilitate informationexchange and entrepreneurial activity: (1) Biomedical
Tuesday, (2) the New Mexico Optics Industry Society
and (3) the New Mexico Information and Software
Association. Each association attracted from 50 to 75
entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and others to their
monthly meetings.
Cooperative R&D agreements (CRADAs) are
intended to transfer technologies from federal R&D
laboratories in the United States to private companies
who collaborate in R&D with the federal laboratory
(Rogers et al., 1998). CRADAs are comprehensive
legal agreements for sharing research personnel,
equipment and intellectual property rights in joint
governmentindustry research between federal R&D
laboratories and private companies. Because federal
R&D laboratories and private companies do not share
a common organizational culture, they face certain
difficulties in their collaboration in CRADAs (Rogers

255

et al., 1998). Larger corporations are more likely to


be involved in CRADAs with federal laboratories in
New Mexico than are smaller companies, and
CRADA partners tend to be out-of-state.

4. Spin-offs
A spin-off is a technology transfer mechanism
because it is usually formed in order to commercialize
a technology that originated in a government R&D laboratory, a university research center or a private R&D
organization. A high rate of establishing spin-off companies is characteristic of technopolises like Silicon Valley,
Austin, Route 128, Cambridge, Tsukuba Science City
(Dearing and Rogers, 1990) and Bangalore (Singhal and
Rogers, 2000). In fact, spin-offs are the main mechanism
for the rapid growth of each of these technopolises.
We examined the high-technology spin-off process
through which a new company is formed from a parent
organization, in the case of (1) seven spin-off companies
in New Mexico and Japan (Carayannis et al., 1998), and
(2) six spin-offs from the University of New Mexico
(Steffensen et al., 1999). An investigation of 30 spinoffs, mainly from LANL and SNL, is presently being
conducted. Support from the parent organization, such
as by providing venture funding, business management
advice, building space or other needed resources, is
especially helpful to the spin-off company. In some
cases, facilitating organizations support a new spin-off
by providing resources and know-how.
Various support organizations have been established
in New Mexico to assist high-tech entrepreneurs in the
difficult process of formulating a business plan,
obtaining venture capital, and getting their new business
underway. For example, the Technology Ventures Corporation and the Business Technology Group (BTG), a
collective of three Albuquerque-based incubators, play
important roles in supporting spin-off companies. Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funding from federal research agencies is particularly important for hightech spin-offs in New Mexico. These companies
received a total of $18 million in SBIR funding in 1998.
We found that the SBIR funding, although typically in
modest amounts per grant, often helped keep a spin-off
alive until it could attract investment from a venture
capitalist.
Our research on spin-offs began by identifying 70 new
high-tech companies that had spun off the federal R&D
laboratories or the University of New Mexico during the
1990s. This list, believed to be fairly exhaustive, was
obtained through a snowball technique beginning with
the technology transfer offices of the two federal R&D
labs and the various support organizations assisting new
ventures in New Mexico, such as the Technology Ven-

256

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

tures Corporation (TVC), business incubators and the


New Mexico Native American Business Development
Center (NMNABDC).
The federal R&D laboratories in New Mexico have
instituted entrepreneurial leave policies, which have
increased the number of their spin-offs. We found that
most parent organizations support their spin-offs, or at
least do not try to destroy them. Several venture capital
firms have moved to New Mexico in recent years. Spinoff facilitating organizations like TVC play an important
role in assisting high-tech spin-offs.
We investigated three spin-off companies, one
founded by a Native American, one by a Hispanic and
one by a Singaporean (in Singapore), in order to determine whether entrepreneurs with collectivistic cultures,
in which the collectivitys goals are more important than
the individuals (Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999), are disadvantaged in spinning off a new firm compared with
entrepreneurs with individualistic cultures, in which the
individuals goals are more important than the collectivitys (Rogers et al., 1999c). The ethnic make-up of New
Mexicos population is 51% European American
Anglos, 39% Hispanics and 9% Native Americans.
People with more collectivistic cultures (for example,
many Hispanics and Native Americans) make up a considerable share of the states population. Is collectivism
a barrier to individual entrepreneurship?
One example of a spin-off company from a federal
R&D laboratory is Beta Corporation International, a
minority-owned international environmental, engineering and management consulting company founded by Dr
Evaristo J. Bonano. He was born in Puerto Rico, and
earned his Masters and Ph.D. degrees from Clark University in 1980. After employment for several years at
the Xerox Corporation, Bonano moved to New Mexico
to work for Sandia National Laboratories. At SNL, he
conducted R&D on nuclear waste clean-up and other
environmental problems. This research experience provided Bonano with the technology and business contacts
to start his own company in 1992. Betas original market
niche was environmental risk assessment, with an
emphasis on radioactive waste disposal. Bonanos ethnic
background is a special advantage in that Spanish is his
native tongue, and his bilingual fluency is beneficial in
Betas business projects in Latin America and Spain.
Computer software for environmental engineering
gradually became Betas core technology. By mid-1999,
Beta had 50 employees, and was operating in a dozen
countries.
We conclude that collectivistic cultural values do not
seem to be a strong deterrent to launching a high-technology spin-off, and may provide certain advantages,
such as when the collectivity (such as family members)
provides capital.

5. Technology transfer from university-based


research centers
A research center is a university-based organization
whose purpose is to conduct scholarly investigations of
an interdisciplinary nature, usually with financial support
from private companies and other organizations outside
the university (Rogers et al., 1999a). So a universitybased research center is a boundary-spanner, defined as
a unit that exchanges information between an organization and its environment. Most research centers conduct
multidisciplinary research drawing on scientific expertise
from two or more academic disciplines.
In recent years, the University of New Mexico has
risen through the ranks of US research universities in
terms of its total amount of external research funding.
Some 85% of this research (as measured by funding) is
conducted by the 55 research centers at the University
of New Mexico (the reminder is conducted by principal
investigators, each in their academic department). UNM
pursued an aggressive policy of launching multidisciplinary research centers, especially in the early 1990s, in
order to expand its functioning as a research university.
One example of UNMs many research centers is the
Center for High-Technology Materials (CHTM), which
was initiated by the State of New Mexico in 1983 as
one of five centers of technical excellence. The original
mission of CHTM was to conduct research on optoelectronics, specifically photonic-type applications and diode
laser fabrications. After CHTM became a SEMATECH
Center of Excellence in 1988, CHTM devoted increasing
research attention to semiconductor materials. CHTM is
one of the largest research centers at UNM, with 91
employees including faculty, undergraduate and graduate students, and staff. CHTMs annual budget is about
$6.5 million. CHTM funds half of the total number of
research assistantships in the Department of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Engineering at UNM, as well
as several research assistantships in the UNM Department of Physics. This research center is located in its
new building on the UNM Science and Technology
Campus. Six start-ups have spun out of CHTM
(Steffensen et al., 1999).
Our study of UNMs 55 research centers showed that:
(1) the directors role is particularly important in a university-based research center; (2) most research centers
recognize technology transfer as one part of their mission; and (3) the main means of technology transfer
reported by research centers are scientific journal articles, but such publications are not very effective in conveying research findings to non-scientist audiences
(Rogers et al., 1999a). We identified 19 spin-off companies from six of the 55 research centers (Rogers et al.,
1999a). Five or six of the 55 research centers, characterized by large budgets and conducting multidisciplinary research in engineering or the life sciences, were

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

most active in invention disclosures, patents and technology licensing.

6. Technology transfer from research universities


A research university is a university whose main purposes are (1) to conduct research, and (2) to train graduate students in how to conduct research. The first
research universities developed in Germany, like Gottingen (in 1737) and the University of Berlin (in 1810).
The idea of the research university spread to the USA,
first to Johns Hopkins University (in 1876) and to Clark
University (in 1890), and then to Stanford University (in
1891) and the University of Chicago (in 1892). Today,
several hundred US universities are considered
research universities.
Research universities in the United States play an
increasingly important role in technology transfer, and
are generally considered to be relatively more effective
in transferring technology than are federal R&D laboratories. The BayhDole Act of 1980 delegated the
responsibility for the transfer of technology resulting
from federally funded research at universities from the
federal government to the universities. University offices
of technology licensing were created and became
important gatekeepers and boundary-spanners in the
technology transfer process. Today, almost all US
research universities have an office of technology licensing, which typically earns technology licensing royalties
for the university. However, at most of the 131 research
universities responding to the annual survey conducted
by the Association of University Technology Managers
(AUTM), the office of technology licensing is relatively
small, with only two or three professional staff members
(Massing, 1998).
The rapid spread of offices of technology licensing in
the 1980s and 1990s was encouraged by: (1) the Bayl
Dole Act, which gave the intellectual property rights for
technologies from federally funded research to universities; (2) the growing importance of life science
research (especially in biotechnology) in creating patentable technologies; and (3) the attraction of having a big
winner technology that will earn millions of dollars.
Examples of such big winners are the $160 million that
Michigan State University has earned from two cancerrelated
inventions,
cisplatin
and
carboplatin
(Blumenstyk, 1999), the $37 million that the University
of Florida has earned from the sports drink Gatorade,
the $27 million that Iowa State University has been paid
for the fax algorithm, and the $143 million earned by
Stanford University for the recombinant DNA genesplicing patent (Odza, 1996). A big winner can dominate the total technology royalties at a research university; for example, $18 million of Michigan State Universitys $18.3 technology royalties in fiscal year 1998

257

came from the two cancer-related drugs (Erbisch, 1999).


Pursuit of a big winner technology provided one
motivation for the rapid diffusion of university offices
of technology licensing, and, more generally, for the
movement of US universities toward academic capitalism,2 which is also indicated by a university having a
research foundation, a technology incubator for start-ups,
a venture capital fund, a research park, and for taking
an equity position in its start-ups.
The nature of technology transfer from research universities in the United States is a process through which
(1) research expenditures, (2) lead to research activities,
(3) that lead to invention disclosures, (4) that lead to
patents applied for and granted, (5) that lead to active
technology licenses, (6) which lead to technology
licenses capable of generating income, (7) which lead to
technology royalties and to start-ups, and (8) thus to jobs
and wealth creation (Fig. 1).
During the fiscal year (FY) 1997, technology licensing
offices at 132 US research universities were issued 2239
patents, executed 2707 new technology licenses, had 258
start-up companies, and earned a total gross income of
$483 million (Massing, 1998). The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) estimated that
$28.7 billion of US economic activity, supporting
245,930 jobs, could be attributed to academic licensing
activity in FY1997 (Massing, 1998). University offices
of technology licensing are important gatekeepers and
boundary-spanners in the technology transfer process
through which university research, funded at $19.9
billion in FY1997, is communicated to potential users,
mainly private companies. From FY1996 to FY1997,
most of the above indicators of technology transfer from
US research universities increased by 15 to 30%
(Massing, 1997).
The Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) earned an income of $52 million from technology licensing in 1997, which represented 13% of the
Universitys total research funding. The OTL staff of 25
professionals handled 248 invention disclosures, filed
185 patents, and managed 272 licensed technologies
yielding income in 1997 and over 1044 active technology licenses (Massing, 1998; Sandelin, 1994). The
mission of OTL is to promote the transfer of Stanford
technology for societys use and benefit while generating
unrestricted income to support research and education.
MITs office of technology licensing, with a staff of
27, had 360 invention disclosures, filed 200 new patents,
was issued 134 patents, had 17 start-up companies, and
earned $21.2 million in technology license income
(Massing, 1998). MITs 205 active patent licenses as of

Academic capitalism is defined as the degree to which a research


university becomes involved in the transfer of university-conducted
research into commercialized products and services.

258

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

Fig. 1.

The process of technology transfer from a research university.

1993 were associated with almost one billion dollars of


investment and created 2000 jobs (Pressman et al.,
1995). Spin-off companies from MIT accounted for only
35% of technology licenses, yet created 77% of the
induced investment and 70% of the employment. Again,
we see the importance of spin-offs as a mechanism of
technology transfer.
In previous research, scholars used a number of different indicators to measure different aspects of technology
transfer effectiveness (for example, Bozeman, 1994;
Geizer and Clements, 1995; Muir, 1993; OKeefe, 1982;
Sandelin, 1994; Spann et al. 1993, 1995; Tornatzky et
al., 1995; Trune, 1996). We constructed a composite
measure of technology transfer effectiveness for US
research universities based on the six steps in the technology transfer process (see Fig. 1). This measure equally weights six indicators of technology transfer effectiveness: (1) the number of invention disclosures, (2) the
number of US patent applications filed, (3) the number
of technology licenses and options executed, (4) the
number of technology licenses and options yielding
income, (5) the number of start-up companies spun off
the university (based on a technology licensed by the
universitys office of technology licensing), and (6) the
total amount of technology licensing royalties earned
per year.
According to their technology transfer effectiveness
scores, the University of California System, Stanford University and MIT are among the 131 US research universities with the highest technology transfer effectiveness
scores. Another research university, with a technology
licensing office staff of only one half-time person, might
only have a dozen invention disclosures, a couple of patents and technology licenses, no spin-offs, and earn licensing royalties of $20,000 in FY1997. Why are some
research universities much more effective in technology
transfer activities than are others? Research universities
that are relatively more effective in technology transfer are
characterized by: (1) more research resources, such as the

number of faculty, student enrolment and R&D expenditures; and (2) a stronger commitment to technology transfer, indicated by the support of university administrators,
the number of staff members in the office of technology
licensing, etc. (Rogers et al., 1999b).
Many research universities are becoming growth
engines for regional economic development through the
technology transfer process (DeVol, 1999). The University of New Mexico ranks 88th among the 131 research
universities in the United States in technology transfer
effectiveness. In the mid-1990s the University established a Science and Technology Corporation to (1)
manage real estate and technology transfer activities
connected with the Technology Park, and (2) oversee
the Universitys office of technology licensing, which
became energized in the late 1990s. The University is
thus involved in facilitating technology transfer such as
through incubators, the research park, etc. One role in
this technology transfer process is provided by the Universitys office of technology licensing.

7. Encouraging technology transfer in New Mexico


New Mexico is located in a relatively remote part of
the United States. It does not have adequate natural
resources or population (that is, customers) to attract certain large businesses. New Mexico ranks first in per capita funding received from the federal government, but
ranks last among the 50 states in per capita income.
On the other hand, New Mexico is particularly technology-rich. Two large national R&D laboratories, the
University of New Mexico and numerous spin-offs create a technology-rich environment in northern New
Mexico. The state is also an entrepreneur-friendly system. The Business Technology Group coordinates several incubators in Albuquerque, including the Albuquerque Technology Incubator and the Lovelace
Research Institutes Incubator. The Technology Ven-

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

tures Corporation, five venture capital companies and


other support organizations also help entrepreneurs in
the daunting process of starting a new business and in
attracting venture capital.
Technology transfer is an important mission of all 700
federal R&D laboratories in the US in the post-Cold War
era. Both Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos
National Laboratory carry out technology transfer
through their offices of technology commercialization.
Both have an Entrepreneurship Program that encourages
researchers to start up a new business while on leave
from their laboratory position for two or three years
(without pay), and with the option to return to employment at their laboratory.
The Technology Ventures Corporation (TVC) was
founded as a non-profit organization in 1993 by the Martin Marietta Corporation, as part of their contract to manage Sandia National Laboratories (this aerospace company later merged with Lockheed). Lockheed Martin
presently funds TVC at about $1 million per year. The
mission of TVC is to identify technologies with commercial potential (especially from SNL), develop business capabilities, and seek venture capital for starting up
high-tech companies. TVC is a non-profit organization
that takes no fees or joint ownership in the new companies that it helps start.
The typical annual process conducted by TVC for
assisting spin-off companies is: (1) to accept applications, including a business plan, from candidate spinoff companies in November of each year; (2) to select
about a dozen spin-offs by mid-January; (3) to form an
advisory group for each spin-off company, consisting of
a management specialist, a venture capitalist, a marketing expert and a TVC employee, who assist the spinoffs entrepreneurs in sharpening their business plan; and
(4) to conduct the New Mexico Equity Symposium in
mid-May in Albuquerque, attended by a number of venture capitalists. Each year, about 20 to 30% of the dozen
new spin-off companies are successful in obtaining venture funding through the TVCs activities.
After five years of operation, TVC estimated that it
brought $134 million in investment to the state of New
Mexico, and created 32 spin-offs and over 1270 jobs
(TVC, 1998). TVC is one reason for the increasing rate
of technology transfer through spin-offs in New Mexico.
An example of a successful spin-off that was facilitated in the start-up process by TVC is EMCOREwest.
This company is located in the newly established Sandia
Science and Technology Park in Albuquerque, and was
launched in 1998 by Dr Tom Brennan, who is General
Manager and Vice President of EMCOREwest. Its core
business is to manufacture more efficient solar cells for
use in satellites and in other applications. Brennan has
an MS degree in solid-state physics from the Stevens
Institute of Technology. After working as a researcher
at AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1980 to 1984, and at

259

Bell Communication Research for two years (1984


1986), Brennan moved to Sandia National Laboratories,
where he worked for a decade.
Brennan requested a work assignment in the Small
Business Development Office at Sandia National Laboratories for one year in order to gain relevant experience in high-tech entrepreneurship. He started MODE
(Micro Optical Devices), a laser company, in 1995, now
a division of EMCORE Corporation (in New Jersey).
The venture capital for MODE was provided by Arch
Venture Corporation, which obtained part of its funding
from the New Mexico Investment Corporation. Brennan
used the same crystal material (that he had utilized at
MODE) for photovoltaic cells of greater efficiency in
converting sunlight to electricity. Brennan sold his ownership of MODE to the EMCORE Corporation for $19
million, and started EMCOREwest in 1996. EMCOREwest had 40 employees in 1999, and was projected to
expand to 400 employees in its second year. Brennan
insisted in his negotiations with the EMCORE Corporation that EMCOREwest should remain in Albuquerque,
in order to neighbor with Sandia National Laboratory.
A vision of creating a technopolis in New Mexico has
gradually emerged in the late 1990s, and appropriate
organizations and programs have arisen to facilitate technology transfer. Numerous high-technology spin-offs
from SNL and LANL and the University of New Mexico
occur in Northern New Mexico, about 20 to 30 annually
in recent years. Eventually, one of these high-tech spinoffs may become a home run and its entrepreneur will
serve as a role model for business success, perhaps similar to the role of Michael Dell in Austin, Texas.

8. Lessons learned about technology transfer


We conclude with the following lessons learned about
technology transfer, drawn from research in New Mexico:
1. Articles in scientific journal are a relatively ineffective mechanism for technology transfer, although articles are one of the main technology transfer activities
of scientists.
2. Spin-offs are a particularly effective means of technology transfer, leading to job and wealth creation.
The rate of such start-ups in a region is relatively slow
at first, but then, after a critical mass is reached,
becomes self-sustaining and increases exponentially.
This critical mass has not yet happened in New Mexico, but may lie in the decade ahead.
3. The availability of ample technology in a region is a
necessary but insufficient factor in the development
of a technopolis. Much of the technology from federal
weapons laboratories like SNL and LANL is defenserelated and thus is difficult to commercialize.
4. Technology transfer facilitating organizations, and

260

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261

the favorable entrepreneurial leave policies of federal


R&D laboratories like SNL and LANL, are speeding
up the process of getting to critical mass in the growth
of high-tech spin-offs. The existence of spin-off facilitating organizations, such as the Albuquerque Technology Incubator, located in the Universitys Technology Park, the Lovelace Research Institute
Incubator, the Business Technology Group and TVC,
help provide important assistance to entrepreneurs in
launching spin-offs.
The early beginnings of a technopolis are getting
underway in Northern New Mexico, but another decade
may be required to reach the take-off point in this process. Meanwhile, New Mexico provides a useful laboratory in which to gain understandings of the technology
transfer process.

Acknowledgements
The authors express their thanks to the Mitsubishi
International Corporation, San Francisco, for supporting
the present research on technology transfer. The present
paper was originally presented at the International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, August
30September 2, 1999, in Austin, Texas.

References
Anon, 1995. The Basics of Licensing. Licensing Executive Society of
USA and Canada, Alexandria, VA.
Blumenstyk, G., 1999. How one university pursued profit from
science and won. Chronicle of Higher Education (February 12).
Bozeman, B., 1994. Evaluating government technology transfer: early
impacts of the cooperative technology paradigm. Political Studies
Journal 22 (2), 322337.
Carayannis, E.G., Rogers, E.M., Kurihara, K., Allbritton, M.M., 1998.
High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and
research universities. Technovation 18 (1), 111.
Dearing, J.W., Rogers, E.M., 1990. Japan: Tsukuba Science City. In:
Williams, F., Gibson, D.V. (Eds.), Technology Transfer. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
DeVol, R.C., 1999. Americas high-tech economy: growth, development, and risk for metropolitan areas, Report. In:. Miliken Institute, Santa Monica, CA.
Erbisch, F., 1999. Personal interview. Office of Intellectual Property,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI (February 8).
Eveland, J.D., 1986. Diffusion, technology transfer, and implementation. Knowledge 8 (2), 303322.
Geizer, E., Clements, C., 1995. Commercialization of technology from
federal laboratories: the effects of barriers, incentives, and the role
of internal entrepreneurship. Report to the National Science Foundation. In:. University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, Whitewater,
WI.
Gibson, D.V., Rogers, E.M., 1994. R&D Collaboration on Trial: The
Microelectronics and Computer Technology Consortium. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Massing, D.E., 1997. AUTM Licensing Survey: Fiscal Year 1997.
Association of University Technology Managers, Norwalk, CT.

Massing, D.E., 1998. AUTM Licensing Survey: Fiscal Year 1997.


Association of University Technology Managers, Norwalk, CT.
Muir, A.E., 1993. Technology transfer office performance index. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 5,
6174.
Nieves, E., 2000. Many in Silicon Valley cannot afford housing, earn
$50,000 a year. The New York Times (February 20) 16.
Odza, M., 1996. Big winners in university tech transfer: and the winners are. Technology Access Report 9 (4), 14.
OKeefe, T.G., Evaluating technology transfer: some problems and solutions. Journal of Technology Transfer 6(2).
Pressman, L., Guterman, S.K., Geist, D.E., Nelsen, L.L., 1995. Reproduction investment and jobs induced by MIT exclusive patent
licenses: a preliminary model to measure the economic impact of
university licensing. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 7, 4982.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. Free Press,
New York.
Rogers, E.M., Steffensen, M., 1999. Spin-offs. In: Dorf, R.C. (Ed.),
Handbook of Technology Management. CRC Press and IEEE
Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. I45I49.
Rogers, E.M., Steinfatt, T.M., 1999. Intercultural Communication.
Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
Rogers, E.M., Carayannis, E.G., Kurihara, K., Allbritton, M.M., 1998.
Cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) as
technology transfer mechanisms. R&D Management 28 (2), 110.
Rogers, E.M., Hall, B.J., Hashimoto, M., Steffensen, M., Speakman,
K.L., Timko, M.K., 1999a. Technology transfer from universitybased research centers: the University of New Mexico experience.
Journal of Higher Education 70 (6), 687705.
Rogers, E.M., Yin, J., Hoffman, J., 1999b. Technology transfer from
US research universities. Unpublished paper. University of New
Mexico, Department of Communication and Journalism, Albuquerque, NM.
Rogers, E.M., Lopez, A.A., Pedro, R.F., 1999c. When tradition meets
technology: collectivistic versus individualistic cultures and hightech spin-off companies. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual
Intercultural Communication Conference. University of Miami,
Coral Gables, FL.
Sandelin, J., 1994. Knowledge transfers through patenting and licensing. Unpublished paper. Stanford University, Office of Technology
Licensing, Stanford, CA.
Singhal, A., Rogers, E.M., 2000. Indias Communication Revolution:
From Bullock Carts to Cyber Marts. Sage/India, New Delhi.
Slaughter, S., Leslie, L.L., 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, MD.
Spann, M.S., Adams, M., Souder, W.E., 1993. Improving federal technology commercialization: some recommendations from a field
study. Technology Transfer 17, 6374.
Spann, M.S., Adams, M., Souder, W.E., 1995. Measures of technology
transfer effectiveness: key dimensions and differences in their use
by sponsors, developers, and adopters. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 42, 1929.
Steffensen, M., Rogers, E.M., Speakman, K., 1999. Spin-offs from
research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing 15, 93111.
Tornatzky, L.G., Wagaman, P.G., Casson, L., 1995. Benchmarking
universityindustry technology transfer in the South: 19931994
data. In: Report to the National Science Foundation. Southern
Technology Council, Research Triangle, NC.
Trune, D.R., 1996. Comparative measures of university licensing
activities. Journal of the Association of University Technology
Managers 8, 63106.
Technology Ventures Corporation (TVC), 1998. New Mexico Equity
Capital Symposium, Albuquerque, NM.

E.M. Rogers et al. / Technovation 21 (2001) 253261


Everett M. Rogers is Regents Professor, in the
Department of Communication and Journalism
at the University of New Mexico. Rogers,
known for his book Diffusion of Innovations
(4th ed., 1995), spent the 19992000 year on
sabbatical leave from the University of New
Mexico as a Visiting Professor at the Center for
Communication Programs at Johns Hopkins
University.

261

Shiro Takegami was a Visiting Research Scientist in 19981999 in the


Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of New
Mexico (and is a Career Officer in MITI, the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry). He is presently serving as a technology transfer advisor for MITI to the government of Saudi Arabia.
Jing Yin was a Research Assistant, in the Department of Communication
and Journalism at the University of New Mexico. He is currently a doctoral student in Communication at Pennsylvania State University.

Potrebbero piacerti anche